Islamic Center and the Media – Don’t Take It Personal

by Andras E. Kovacs

Muslims of New York hoped the Community Center near Ground Zero opens up new channels for them to clear up the misconceptions that surround their religion. Instead, most Americans use it as an opportunity to dispute on the heart of their own identity. Again.

The night I first set foot on New York City’s sidewalks I saw two newspapers lying in front of me. Bold, big letters were reporting on a public outrage caused by a mosque, being built on 9/11’s ’hallowed ground’. Reading these August 23 editions of the New York Post and Metro, their sketchy articles portrayed a situation in which instead of a national memorial, a gigantic mosque is taking shape where once World Trade Center’s proud towers were standing. Following up the issue in the New York Times it has not only become evident that what is actually underway is legal preparation for the construction of an Islamic Community Center in the neighboring blocks, but a thorough poll (articles: 1, 2) has also debriefed about citizen’s elaborate relationship with it. Unsupportive of the building’s placement as it is, it still proved to be less than what you might identify as outrage. I can safely say, representing the point of view of a complete outsider, that a random encounter with the media can misguide one’s perception of the issue. However, the problem here seems to be nothing more than that people don’t throw The Times on the sidewalk as often as they do the Post.

What I find more alarming is that the public discussion is stuck around a paradox of two core American values appearing to be in conflict with one another. First is the conventional respect towards the deceased and their relatives, in union with the hurt pride of a nation that is seeking for vendetta for almost a decade and receives only slaps on his face, from even the most unexpected directions (its leaders, its financial system and even the causes that it is fighting for turning out to be, to say the least, contestable). Now the enemy, knowing no decency, dares to appear at the grave. At the most symbolic grave that there is. So it feels. A more theoretical approach, every bit as essentially American as the other, repeats the first amendment as its mantra, claiming that the freedom of religion guaranteed by the Constitution should be sustained, no matter what. The fact that foundations of the national identity came against each other is the primary reason the issue can excite such a feverish and extended debate. The problem with the press is that it fuels the fire by giving its support to either one of the arguments– in order to help it overcome the other. Scarce are the articles that try to shed light on the schizophrenia, inherent in this strife of decency and pride vs. religious tolerance. Asking the following questions could, perhaps, help: If we do not identify Islam with extremist terrorism, how can the mere presence of a religion hurt our feelings of respect towards the victims of, what was in fact, extremist terrorism. Especially if the religion in question is no less sympathetic with the catastrophe of 9/11 than any other. Or: If we do identify Islam with extremist terrorism how is it that we only want to move it away a couple of blocks? How can we let others protect it in the name of religious tolerance?

While many articles cite Feisal Abdul Raif, the imam of the proposed project, as being reproving of terrorism personally and promoting a branch of Islam that is peaceful and tolerant, they keep quiet about whether this is normal for Islam or an anomaly. In the New York Times there is an obvious assumption of the former, in the New York Post, of the latter, but never straight talk. The media outlets that are against shout a vague claim of immorality, which comes from the same place the support for the war on Iraq came. From a thick mist of dangerously confused concepts. Their reasons for being careful not to make that any clearer can be understood. It is less evident why the supportive side of the media does not assume a broader perspective. Still, they make no real efforts to provide a clear guideline to the questions that are hanging in the air since 9/11. (Who are they exactly, who hate us? Why exactly do they hate us? What is their relationship with Islam? And what is Islam?) What they are trying to accomplish is to persuade their readers that Park51 and its worshippers are going to conform with American values and it is indeed an American duty to let them conform. The debate takes no real interest in the religion or in the people who respect it but in the question of what makes us (well, I’m here for two weeks, am I not?) American. Or, it is important to distinguish if you are on the liberal side, what makes a New Yorker–which should be nothing less than the role model for the country, a little more truly American than the rest. Just as it was fatally neglected in the past decade, this again, is no occasion for the press to go after Islam in general, to tell their readers not what its particular, decently modernized New York branch thinks but what it is actually about. What the majority of its believers believe and what its scripture says. No media is trying to educate Americans about the very thing they are encouraged to form an opinion on.

Proof that the debate is more focused on ideas than on what is actually going on is that most reports overlook the fact that there actually is a mosque, home to prayers, two blocks from the Gound Zero, exactly where the Islamic Community Center is planned to be built. It is almost a year now since it first opened. It is free for anyone to enter. During Ramadan, visitors are even invited to join worshippers on their iftar. It is very easy to engage in casual conversation and learn about their view of the issue. Yet we, from Bard, were the only ones of those thousands concerned who were there to do it. Peter–born and raised in America, which is of no concern to a New Yorker, but what if–offered an opinion, not frequently voiced by the media. (That is not to say it is not voiced at all–with different overtones–, e.g. in CNN, The New York Times, and in The New York Post.) He told us that they are struggling to clear people’s misconceptions about Islam and explain them what it stands for, and what its relationship is with those who are not of the faith. But what they have to say have no news value. Media, simply, does not mediate it. Or even worse: ‘They always put someone on TV who’s got an accent or doesn’t know anything about Islam.’ They see the establishment of the Islamic Community Center near Ground Zero as an opportunity for communication in many senses. First, it is going to be a building open for everyone, a building where those who are willing to get informed about Islam can find resources. Second, its proximity to the WTC site, in their opinion, expresses that they share the viewpoint of those who suffered losses on 9/11, and that they are there to talk about it. ‘What better place is there? What better way to show that Muslims are completely opposed to what took place on 9/11 than actually building a community center, that is everyone’s.’ says Peter. ‘Muslims have also died in Twin Towers. There’s a quote that Muslims were attacked twice that day.’ Apart from being attacked literally, 9/11 was also an attack on the image of their religion. They hope that the media attention they are receiving now is finally a chance for them to speak to the public and rectify this image. Browsing through the press coverage of the last four months, it is clearly not.

Resources:

MSNBC
Wall Street Journal
Mayor Bloomberg’s speech
The New York Times
International coverage through the New York Times
The New York Post
CNN Belief blog interview
CNN: Fareed Zakaria GPS
Fox News
The Washington Post
The Huffington Post

Box: Tourists resting alongside the WTC construction site react differently when they learn about the mosque already open next street, and about the views its worshippers shared with us. Gabor Janos, a camp counselor from Hungary asserts that ‘Americans don’t care what Muslims think. They are too narrow minded. They formed an image of an enemy. That’s all they needed. They won’t let it loose.’ Geoffrey Lyle, a senior tourist from California, approaches the news from a different pragmatic standpoint. ‘I’m sure they’re good people. Otherwise they’d be in jail.’ Adding ‘It’s not American Muslims that are the problem. Their home countries. They’re [the ones] causing the troubles.’